Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is a repository copy of "From Terrorists to Peacekeepers": The IRA's disengagement and the role of community networks.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90275/
Version: Accepted Version
Article:
Clubb, G orcid.org/0000-0002-5168-2043 (2014) "From Terrorists to Peacekeepers": The IRA's disengagement and the role of community networks. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 37 (10). pp. 842-861. ISSN 1057-610X
https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.941434
© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism on 1st May 2014, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1057610X.2014.941434
[email protected]://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
1
“From Terrorists to Peacekeepers”: The IRA’s
Disengagement and the Role of Community Networks
GORDON CLUBB
University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Utilising interviews with former IRA members, Loyalists and community workers,
the article looks at how militants in Northern Ireland have helped to prevent
terrorism and political violence (TPV) by adopting roles in the community.
Utilising mobile phones, a network of former combatants emerged around
interface areas in the late 1990s to contain trigger causes of terrorism, providing
a unique role that the state could not. The structure of the network encouraged
militant groups to follow the IRA’s example to disengage – thus creating a
domino effect – and the co-operation between senior militants has limited the
opportunities for other groups to mobilise a campaign of terrorism.
Keywords Disengagement, terrorism, Northern Ireland, IRA
Introduction
Throughout the late 1990s up until now, [Provisional] Irish Republican Army (IRA)
volunteers have played a crucial role in reducing the opportunities of violence re-emerging
that could disrupt the peace process in Northern Ireland. As the IRA gradual disengaged,
networks of former combatants developed, particularly in interface areas where the
Republican and Loyalist communities met. When the police could not contain and de-escalate
violence at flashpoints, IRA volunteers working in a community role would be encouraged by
police officers to enter these areas and use their influence to bring an end to the violence.
Furthermore, almost ten years since the IRA formally disbanded, senior figures of the (former)
IRA continue to meet with Loyalist paramilitary leaders to act as an early warning system to
prevent violence from erupting. Given Horgan’s observation that involvement in terrorism
can end through role-change, it seems reasonable to claim that the IRA’s disengagement has
been successfully completed through a transition in roles from “terrorists to peacekeepers”1.
2
Much research has been written on the disengagement of militants into political
structures or reintegrated back into civilian life, but little has been written with regard to
disengagement into a social network involved in community activism, let alone into a de-
facto policing and counter-terrorism capacity. While the last point may be controversial, the
role of former combatants in the networks that the article will analyse does, perhaps without
the intent, serve to prevent terrorism and political violence (TPV). The article will explain
how this form of disengagement manifested, how it has functioned to prevent violence and
create a domino effect among other militant groups, and whether it should be encouraged in
the context of countering TPV. Drawing on a series of interviews conducted in Belfast, the
article focuses on a specific type of community activism that emerged in the context of the
Northern Irish peace process: the mobile phones network in Belfast interface areas. The
mobile phones network is the name given to network of community workers and former
combatants that sprung up around interface areas, brought together in part by the growing use
of mobile phone technology in the late 1990s. Since then, this network has expanded to
include ex-prisoner groups and conflict transformation groups, including both Republican
and Loyalists. Although there have been excellent studies that have analysed terrorism
activity as networks2, this approach has been more sparingly applied to the disengagement
process, despite the dismantlement of groups leaving behind a residue of social networks
which still remain politically active.
While the article situates itself within the terrorism literature, it is informed by
insights from conflict studies. Mainstream research on disarmament, de-mobilisation and re-
integration (DDR) has generally taken a similar perspective to terrorist disengagement insofar
as the end-goal has been to integrate disengaging combatants into state structures and/or to
transform them into obedient, passive citizens of the state3. However, DDR research on
Northern Ireland has demonstrated how former combatants can play an active role in conflict
transformation through community activism4. The literature on preventing terrorism has
recognised the salience of community-based approaches5 but they remain silent on the role
that disengaged combatants can play in community activism to help prevent terrorism. The
literature on terrorism prevention recognises that a ‘radical milieu’ may exist - which is a
community that tends to be supportive or sympathetic to a campaign of TPV – and
preventative strategies are aimed at this section of the community6 . Recognising the
difficulties that a state has in engaging with the ‘radical milieu’, prevention strategies have
sought to empower community leaders to counter the narratives that underpin support for a
3
TPV campaign. Yet, as the DDR literature shows, it is often disengaged combatants who
have the most credibility within this ‘radical milieu’. The ‘radical milieu’ in Northern Ireland
- which is sometimes most prevalent in interface areas between Republican and Loyalist
communities - is a site of contestation between armed Republicans, (militarily) disengaged
Republicans and Loyalist paramilitaries. Therefore, the involvement of former combatants in
the community can weaken the opportunities for armed Republicans and Loyalist
paramilitaries to engage in violence, thus helping to prevent terrorism.
Disengagement and Preventing Terrorism
At first glance, conflating the type of conflict that occurs at interface areas with
terrorism may seem problematic. However, as will be explored below, the act of stone
throwing and youth violence can quickly escalate to terrorism and the low-level violence
itself be framed as a form of TPV; a crucial part of the mobile phone network’s work has
been to reframe this violence for what it is. In this context, the article uses the term ‘(former)
militant/combatants/paramilitaries’ instead of ‘(former) terrorist’ to refer to members of the
IRA, UDA, Real IRA and so on because the latter term obfuscates their other identities, but
the article maintains that there are acts of terrorism, which is a tactic among other forms of
political violence used by various actors7. Therefore, interface violence can be seen as part of
terrorism prevention because of the escalatory dynamics at play – it can cause or provide
opportunities for terrorism to be used – and also because the act of stone-throwing (as an
example) can be framed as part of a political conflict, allowing it to be constructed as part of
a terrorism campaign against one’s community. As a result, a broader conceptualisation of
what constitutes terrorism suggests that disengagement from terrorism should also be
analysed more broadly, specifically at a community level.
The term disengagement refers to an individual or a militant group moving away from
the use of TPV. The growing interest in and formulation of disengagement strategies for
counter terrorism has emerged in part because of recognition that force and detention alone
are not sufficient, and in fact, these approaches can often backfire8. A symbiosis between
academic research and government counter-terrorism strategies have produced three
components of disengagement that seeks to plug the gap in our knowledge of how terrorism
campaigns end. The first component of disengagement analyses (state) attempts to facilitate
individuals to leave a militant group, and they can also seek to bring along elements of the
group, or the majority or entirety of a militant group9. A second component of disengagement
4
addresses how to ensure that, once disengagement has occurred, that the militants remain
disengaged from terrorism – this component is concerned with how different types of
disengagement can reduce the risk of recidivism (or re-offending)10. A third component of
disengagement recognises the potential role that disengaged militants can have in preventing
others from engaging in terrorism11 and/or encouraging others to disengage (the domino
effect12). While much has now been written about the first two aspects of disengagement,
little has been written on how the disengagement of militants can help to actively prevent
violence.
Schmid observed that, with a few exceptions, ‘there are, strangely enough, few really
good works on the prevention of terrorism’13. The nascent research on the topic identifies a
number of salient factors for preventing the occurrence of terrorism, which include some of
the following. The American Bipartisan Policy Centre identify three factors: countering the
grievances, real or perceived, which violent extremists aim to exploit; countering the
narratives and ideology by empowering community leaders to speak in order to stop violent
extremist ideas from resonating; and countering mobilisation efforts by violent extremists, for
example, by disrupting recruitment opportunities14. In Schmid’s ‘twelve rules for preventing
and countering terrorism’, a number of factors stand out: a) establish an early detection and
early warning intelligence system against terrorism; b) show solidarity with victims of
terrorism; c) maintain the moral high-ground with terrorists by strengthening the rule of law
and good governance; d) reduce opportunities for terrorists to strike; e) and address the
underlying causes of conflict15. The Northern Ireland case challenges some of these factors
insofar as victims have been marginalised in the disengagement process16 and that attempts to
provide justice for victims is pushing paramilitary groups toward violence17. Furthermore, as
will be shown below, the rule of law and good governance has, to an extent, been transferred
to former combatants where the state has been less effective. Therefore, many of the
assumptions on what can help to prevent terrorism are often inverted in Northern Ireland or
the agent implementing these strategies is not the state. While some of these points will be
explored at the end of the article, the main focus in terms of prevention is on reducing
opportunities for mobilisation and addressing the causes of conflict (which manifests in TPV).
There are different types of causes of violence. Root causes, otherwise known as
preconditions, are the factors that set the stage for terrorism in the long-term. Root causes can
inform the grievances that (are used to) motivate a terrorism campaign (e.g. structural
inequality; constitutional grievances; repression; societal insecurity) or they can be deeper
5
structural causes that facilitate, enable and shape terrorism (e.g. urbanisation, new technology
and the internet). Trigger causes are specific events that immediately precede the occurrence
of terrorism18, thus providing opportunities for militant groups. Trigger causes can be shaped
directly by structural factors, which can then inform grievances: in this case, violence can
emerge regularly and the more removed the structures are, the more difficulty the state can
have in either removing these structures or preventing the trigger causes that emerge from
them. Of course, since the state is limited in the extent it can (or should) address these
different causes to prevent terrorism, the assumption would be that former combatants would
have even less of an impact. However, there has been little examination of the role of the
‘terrorist’ in preventing terrorism. Of course, group disengagement is itself a means of
preventing terrorism: in this process of disengagement it has been shown how counter-
narratives against violence can emerge19. Counter-narratives by disengaged militants can
resonate with constituencies who are potentially drawn to terrorism because they have
credibility and legitimacy that the state may lack. Furthermore, while underexplored,
disengagement can have a domino effect on other groups, thus encouraging them to also
disengage20. Finally, group disengagement can lead to political negotiations which can help
to address the grievances, thus undercutting support for violence. However, there has been
little substantive analysis of the active role that former militants can play in preventing TPV.
The aim of the article is to expand on these points by providing an in-depth analysis
of how one type of disengagement – into community activism - has helped to prevent
terrorism in Northern Ireland. As terrorism prevention is broad, the article focuses on two
aspects: a) countering the trigger causes of violence and subsequent opportunities which these
present; and b) countering mobilisation. In the case of the latter, the article builds upon
Ashour’s suggestion that disengagement can have a domino effect and demonstrates how it
can prompt other groups to disengage – thus countering mobilisation.
The IRA’s Disengagement and the Continuation of Violence
Once a militant group ceases to use violence and declares its intent to end the
campaign, as the IRA did in 1994, the challenge of disengagement emerges. There are three
aspects of disengagement: disarmament; de-mobilisation; and re-integration. The rationale
behind DDR programmes is to reduce the likelihood of a return to violence, known as
recidivism reduction, but there is a growing recognition that they can also help in conflict
transformation efforts beyond simply being ‘good citizens’. Disengagement can manifest in a
6
number of routes: into military structures (e.g. the Palestine Liberation Organisation21);
political structures (e.g. Sinn Fein); civilian life (e.g. Colombian former combatants22) or, as
is the focus of this article, through community activism. The disarmament of the IRA, known
as decommissioning, was a contentious process, especially because it was against the group’s
constitution23. But in 2005, a third party confirmed that the IRA had put their arsenal beyond
use, thus paving the way for Sinn Fein to enter government at Stormont. Decommissioning
occurred in 2005 for many of the same reasons that led to disengagement in 1994. The
arguments for disengagement made by the IRA leadership presented decommissioning as a
tactic to be traded in for concessions in political negotiations24. Disarmament was portrayed
in internal dialogue as not necessarily limiting the option of a return to violence if
negotiations failed, as the process of re-arming is easy because ‘you can’t decommission
what is in people’s heads’25. The option of a return to violence provided some members with
comfort to help them make the progression26. Other external factors, mainly the September
11th attacks, helped the leadership to convince members that the time had come to make the
trade of disarmament. While the group had been integrating its members into community
activism for some years, the dual pressure of disarmament and community activism put to
rest the option of returning to violence in their mind27. Thus, while disarmament may have
played a small role in leaving violence behind and it limited the potential resources for
dissident Republicans, its real impact on recidivism reduction was in moving them toward
further disengagement and it paved the way for other militant groups to consider
disengagement.
In terms of demobilisation, which refers to the dismantlement of command structures,
the IRA formally completed demobilisation in 2005. However, as noted by Shirlow et al,
most research on the IRA underplays the extent that, organisationally, it still functions in one
form or another. One Loyalist perceived that there still exists a command structure and that
the army council continue to meet28, and while this has been largely merged into Sinn Fein29,
it also manifests itself in ex-prisoner groups and informal social networks, with volunteers
engaging in community activism as part of continuing to serve the Republican movement.
Informal demobilisation is a common feature, with Loyalist groups still maintaining their
organisational structure and even bringing in new recruits30. However, contrary to many of
the assumptions on the need for demobilisation to reduce the risk of recidivism made in the
literature, the IRA’s continuation as an informal social network has in fact helped to reduce
violence and the risk of violence31. It has provided them with activists who can be mobilised
7
in conflict transformation and the existence of a hierarchy allows local leaders of the militant
groups to meet up and discuss flare ups in violence to then return to their community and
pass on the outcomes of the meeting. This challenges the literature’s assumption on ending
terrorism campaigns32 that prioritises a liberal approach of establishing the state’s monopoly
on violence. Instead, this approach may have to compromise in the short-term by not pushing
for demobilisation, and that informal networks at the community level can provide a more
socially palatable means to build a grass-roots approach. Of course, the success of all
disengagement programmes is contingent on sufficient support for disengagement among the
militant group33, but also among the ‘radical milieu’ which the group draws upon. The fact
that this was not always the case meant that there was a continuing threat of TPV throughout
the disengagement process, and it is this violence which disengagement into community
activism has helped to prevent.
While the IRA’s disengagement has brought most members along with it, potential
sources of violence continued from three sources: 1) a number of groups, such as the INLA,
continued to exist; 2) Loyalist groups were on a ceasefire but their reluctance to
decommission its weaponry posed a risk of recidivism, which could then provoke
Republicans; and 3) a number of key figures left the IRA to set up a range of dissident
Republican groups – the Real IRA, Continuity IRA, Oghlaigh Na Heireann, and the New
IRA - who remain committed to engaging in TPV and who seek to recruit the younger
generation. Even now, there are claims that Sinn Fein is still wary of defections among their
own ranks to the dissident groups34, which is set to the background of a broader fear that
there can be a return to violence in Northern Ireland35. While the dissident groups, such as the
Real IRA, recognise that there is currently a lack of support for an armed struggle, their
strategy has focused on continuing a limited campaign until opportunities arise36. As will be
discussed below, interface areas have been a key resource in terms of maintaining the limited
campaign and providing the opportunities for dissident groups. Given the potential for
discontented members, dissident groups and Loyalist paramilitaries to threaten the peace
process which the IRA committed itself to, there have been a number of ways in which
disengagement has sought to prevent violence. In the early days of disengagement during the
1990s and early 2000s, the IRA was able to repress dissident groups and prevent them from
engaging in terrorism37, although one Real IRA member stated how this tool had now
diminished38. Yet its progression into a political route has diminished the extent it can resort
8
to such tactics39, which places greater emphasis on the role of community activism in
preventing violence.
A community route, cultivated through years of grassroots activism and European
Union funding, presented an alternative option for IRA members who could not or would not
be integrated into political routes. While disengagement is often undertaken under the
auspices of the state, the fact former combatants contest the state’s legitimacy can act as a
barrier to groups wishing to disengage. Thus, the European Union was in a better position to
provide funding which (former) IRA members could legitimately apply for40, under its
PEACE I, II and III projects aimed at initiatives working toward conflict transformation.
Furthermore, former prisoners re-entered a society where they had limited options to rebuild
their careers and faced marginalisation because of their time in prison41. The lack of services
and job prospects for former IRA prisoners – 25,000 since the 1970s - meant there was a need
for the group to provide support for its members, and this has the effect of increasing loyalty
between members and dependency on the informal social network42 . Furthermore, it
incentivises remaining disengaged, and provides legitimacy and credibility within the
community which dissident Republicans struggle to compete with. Finally, the limited
legitimacy the police force have in Republican communities creates a demand for the IRA
members to meet, and while punishment beatings are not a viable option now, other creative
means such as restorative justice need to be used to prevent paramilitary groups and dissident
Republicans exploiting this opportunity. The article will now focus on one particular
manifestation of disengagement – community activism at interface areas - to demonstrate
how it functions to prevent TPV. Before explaining the preventative function of community
activism, the article will now briefly provide background to the data that grounds the analysis.
Methods and Interview Data
The article draws on interviews conducted in Belfast, August 2013. It was decided to
restrict data collection to Belfast primarily due to the greater level of community activism
around the city’s interface areas: in the past, violence has erupted at Belfast interface areas
and has spread throughout the region. Data collection was based on judgemental sampling
and snowballing techniques, thus identifying potential participants working in interface areas
who would then suggest other interviewees within the network. For example, the former IRA
prisoner group, Coiste arranged interviews with former combatants and the community
workers introduced the researcher to other colleagues in mobile phone network. However,
9
one problem with arranging interviews through Coiste is the possibility that interviewees will
stick to a party political line43; to overcome this problem the article sought to also use actors
not affiliated to Coiste but who worked closely with their members to help corroborate the
findings, unlike a number of other studies who worked through Coiste44. Another benefit of
this combined snowballing and judgemental sampling strategy was it helped to corroborate
details and provide a more holistic perspective, thus overcoming criticism of the interview
method lacking completeness. Overall, the methods used provide a rich understanding of how
actors work with one another and perceive their roles, and as it focuses on a specific role (i.e.
community work) it has greater comprehensiveness than other studies which have
interviewed former combatants but not taken into account their environment or who the
interact with45.
Overall, there were three types of interviewees, although there was often an overlap
between the former combatants and community workers. Given how the mobile phone
network consists of only a couple of people on each side of the interface areas in Belfast, the
number of interviews is fairly representative. For institutional ethical reasons, these sources
were kept anonymous. The first were former combatants who mainly consisted of five former
IRA members. One of the former IRA combatants had not been a member of Sinn Fein and
did not support them, but was opposed to violence and worked at interface areas. The other
four interviewees from this group were members of Sinn Fein, with one being a senior figure
in the group’s disengagement. The former combatant group also included figures from the
Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Defence Association, who provided useful
insights on some of this community work which were more critical. Finally, whilst it was
unclear the extent to which the interviewee was a former combatant, a convicted member of
the Real IRA was interviewed.
The second group of interviewees were community workers: some of whom were also
former combatants, were overtly linked to the political groups affiliated to paramilitary
organisations, or who had personal ties to former combatants as a result of being involved in
the community. The term ‘community worker’ is used loosely to refer to people who work in
the voluntary sector or indirectly connected with (local) government; in many cases the
interviewees were directors of the organisations or project managers. The activities of these
community workers include: interface work; youth work; conflict transformation, restorative
justice and truth-telling; or writing, encouraging and managing funding proposals.
Approximately half worked in predominantly Catholic, Nationalist, Republican areas and the
10
other half working in Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist areas. The community workers were able
to provide substantial depth of knowledge with regard to Republican areas as many have
lived there all their life and the lack of an overt political affiliation for some community
workers meant that they were less concerned about projecting a political agenda.
The third group of interviewees can be classified as state and security officials, who
helped to provide a context to the study, whether this was with regard to the UK’s counter-
terrorism strategy against Jihadists, institutional pressures that the police face, or the internal
politics of policing. One of the interviewees in this category was responsible for assessing the
extent that the community groups set up by former combatants had legitimately moved away
from violence and were adhering to criteria for accreditation by the government. Therefore,
these interviews were crucial for corroborating findings from the other groups of interviewees
and added significant weight to their credibility, thus improving the analysis of how the
mobile phone network functions to prevent interface violence.
Interface Violence and the Trigger Causes of Terrorism
Prevention strategies seek to remove the causes of violence, and trigger causes are
unique insofar as relatively unpredictable events can provoke a backlash among a ‘radical
milieu’, thus providing opportunities for militant groups to launch an attack, mobilise the
population, or establish their legitimacy. One such trigger cause is interface areas in Belfast
which are structurally rooted in the design of the city and community divisions. Republican
and Loyalist communities in Belfast are often divided by barriers, known as ‘peace walls’,
with both communities meeting at certain intersection areas. During the contentious marching
season, Republican and Loyalist parades can lead to riots at these choke-points. Also, these
interface areas are part of a tug of war between disengaged Republicans and dissident
Republicans, with the latter recognising that the ‘radical milieu’ in interface areas can provide
support for their armed campaign. In recent years, mainstream Republicanism has lost ground
to dissident Republicans in some interface areas, such as Ardoyne46, thus providing dissidents
with a space to attempt to stoke tension, mobilise support and engage in limited violence. In
the most volatile of interface areas, the militant groups have a significant presence in their
communities and this presence has often come at the expense of the police-force who have
traditionally struggled with legitimacy. During the conflict, groups such as the IRA would
assume a de-facto policing role to fill the gap that they had encouraged. However, the culture
11
of antipathy toward the police that the militant groups fostered have limited the extent the
police could assert themselves in these communities once the groups began disengaging.
In the case of Northern Ireland, much of the initial violence at interface violence has
little to do with the broader conflict and those involved have no political motivation47, and it
by and large involves stone throwing, which can hardly constitute terrorism or political
violence. Yet there are two factors that make interface areas unique in terms of trigger causes
in Northern Ireland. Firstly, what may simply be characterised as anti-social behaviour
among young people in another context, this low-level violence is often interpreted as
constituting part of a zero-sum political conflict between both communities – therefore, it is
the Catholics/Protestants who are identified as throwing the stone, for example, rather than a
young person. Interfaces are by and large durable structures, meaning they are regular,
difficult to change but at least predictable. Interface violence tends to be triggered by events
that have particular resonance with Loyalist and Republican identity, such as parades, sports,
bonfires, and flag issues48. As these events are mostly regular and closely tied to identity it
means that interface violence and the ‘peace walls’ are a relatively durable structure, which
reinforces the perception of the ‘other’ in negative terms. The limited interaction between
communities on either side of the interface means that violence is underpinned by rumours,
mistrust and suspicion49, which in turn makes it difficult to remove the ‘peace walls’ to foster
trust50. Secondly, while they may not be direct trigger causes of terrorism, they can quickly
escalate into more serious forms of TPV because they provide opportunities for militants to
exploit the tensions. One senior security official in Northern Ireland stated that the violence
‘starts off with a low level of violence but it can escalate into terrorism’51 and a community
worker engaging with former combatants commented that ‘all you need is one person to be
killed by accident or design, and it could just set off an inferno in a place like that’52. One
Loyalist mentioned that violence can develop in three stages: firstly, bricks and bottles;
secondly, petrol bombs; and thirdly bombs and guns53.
Therefore, interface areas function as potential trigger causes of violence which are
structurally durable, meaning they have existed broadly independently of political changes
that have emerged as part of the peace process or even the IRA’s disengagement.
Nevertheless, one interface worker – a former member of the IRA – commented that the
growing acceptance of policing has meant that it is the police who would now deal with
violence54, yet it was clear there are still gaps in the PSNI’s ability to manage violence at the
interface areas55 . Historically, the illegitimacy of the police in interface areas – both
12
Republican and Loyalist communities – often means their intervention would actually
exacerbate rather than calm violence56, and that these areas were traditionally under the
influence of paramilitaries who – prior to disengagement – would encourage violence by
young people when it was in their interest. Subsequently, a social space has existed in
Northern Ireland which could potentially destabilise disengagement and the peace process,
often against the wishes of the IRA and the militant groups who would later disengage. It
could function as an opportunity for grassroots activists opposed to disengagement or the
peace process to de-rail negotiations, as a means to assert their authority, to strengthen their
position with new recruits, or the violence could take a life of its own and restrict the
bargaining power in political negotiations. Furthermore, the tensions that arise at interface
areas and with parades can push the PSNI forces to a breaking point to undermine their
effectiveness at providing security, which gives significant influence to paramilitary groups
who wish to destabilise the political process57 . It was this potential to disrupt the
disengagement process that prompted the mobile phones network to emerge in the late 1990s,
which lay the groundwork for co-operation between militant groups in order to prevent
violence from erupting.
The Mobile Phone Network
The mobile phones network has its roots in the interface violence that erupted in
North Belfast in 1996, leading to violence and rioting in nationalist areas throughout
Northern Ireland. As stated above, the violence was triggered by a combination of
controversial parades, rumours and mistrust between communities, and the lack of a police
force with the legitimacy to contain the rioting. In response, in 1997, a statutory sector
organisation gave mobile phones to key groups and individuals in existing community
networks. They would keep the phones turned on all the time during the parades season with
the aim of keeping people away from interfaces, preventing stone-throwing, calming tensions
and defusing rumours58. The success of the network in 1997 led to the increase and expansion
of the mobile phone network, yet over the years the network has transformed. At first, a long
list of numbers would be made available to the community for people to phone interface
contacts when an issue emerged, but then the contacts began to use their own personal phones,
forming relatively small clusters of people – two or three – on each side of the interface59.
Since its inception, the network has morphed into three dimensions: a smaller formal
network of community safety partnerships; a larger network of former combatants such as a
13
project called the Belfast Conflict Resolution Consortium (BCRC) – which is dominated by
former IRA members60; and informal networks, including former combatants and, for
example, one woman’s group in the Short Strand/East Belfast61. Former combatants from the
IRA, the Official IRA, the INLA, the UDA, and the UVF are to varying degrees involved in
the networks at the interface areas. Paramilitary organisations have been able to adopt a
central role in the mobile phone networks because the contacts have more respect in the
community and among young people than, say, community workers, and their role in the
conflict provides them with legitimacy to engage with the ‘other’, whereas for others it would
be normatively prohibitive. However, membership of a paramilitary organisation does not
necessarily give automatic credibility, therefore former combatants who live in the area will
be utilised 62, which incentivises the maintenance of a command structure.
Therefore, the mobile phone network provides some informal organisational continuity,
whereby nodes in the network will mobilise former combatants to resolve interface problems.
Another key factor in the growth of the networks was, at the beginning of the network, the
police force would actively encourage it by utilising former combatants to help calm down
interface areas:
Then what would have happened is the police would call and say ‘listen we are a
bit stressed can you go up, there’s a riot taking place’. We’d go up and there’s
two jeeps sitting there, and the police sitting in the jeeps saying ‘we can’t get out
of the jeeps for security reasons, we don’t have the riot gear on’. And we’d say
‘hang on, are you kidding me’. So we’d have to go in and say ‘hang on you are
not doing it on these people’s behalf or have a wee discussion why they shouldn’t
be doing it. So on both sides you’d have to intervene. Other times you would
phone up the other side and say ‘hang on, they are gathering here because they
think you have over 300 petrol bombs over there’ ‘hang on, we’re here because
we think you have 300 petrol bombs’. Sometimes you’d have to go back to people
and tell them what they didn’t want to hear because they had gathered because
they thought they were threatened by the other side.63
Therefore, pressures at the community level incentivised the maintenance of networks
that had previously made up the militant groups instead of breaking them up, which began to
14
function as an early warning system to de-escalate potential conflict. While the interviewee
above argued that such intervention has been less regular, interviewees from an INLA and
Loyalist background talked about the continued role of former combatants in calming
interface violence in the last few years. The mobile phone networks, and the role of former
combatants within them, has helped to reduce the risk of riots and further escalation by
managing the interface areas and dispelling rumours of imminent attacks from opposing sides:
There were instances in Ardoyne where there was an Orange march passing
Ardoyne and one of the newspapers put out a story that the INLA was going to
attack the march. Of course, that triggered off a response in the Loyalist areas,
that people were going to come along and prevent the INLA from attacking the
march. Again, people around the table discussed it and representatives from the
INLA constituency assured the Loyalists that there was absolutely no truth in this.
The loyalists went back in their communities saying ‘nobody is to go to Ardoyne,
this isn’t true’ and there was no riot, basically. Whereas if it had been allowed to
run its course, there probably would have been. 64
As it was established prior to the Good Friday Agreement, the mobile phone network
helped to reduce violence which could have derailed the peace process. The gradual process
of disengagement through the mobile phone network not only provided combatants with a
new role, it also functioned to reduce the risk of recidivism which could have pulled them
and their organisation back into conflict. In addition to reducing violence, it has also limited
the opportunities available to dissident Republican groups. There has been much discussion
on how former IRA figures and Sinn Fein have lost influence in some interface areas such as
Ardoyne, which have subsequently turned into areas where dissident Republicans are ‘free to
play’ 65 . However, the mobile phone network has acted as deterrence to paramilitary
organisations who wish to use violence66 because it builds on a broader base of legitimacy
than just the IRA, and the dynamics of the network pushes groups to co-operate.
In addition to preventing an escalation of violence, former combatants have been
crucial in trying to de-essentialise the violence occurring at interface areas. At root of the
interface violence and its ability to escalate is its interpretation in terms of political cleavages,
therefore ‘ordinary violence’ is framed as political violence. Therefore, one of the most
15
crucial but understated ways that former combatants prevent TPV is to challenge the
perception that interface violence should be seen as part of a political or identity conflict:
So I’d go up to residents doors and they’d tell me they [came from the other side]
and smashed my windows. I’d ask if they did it the other night and they’d say ‘no,
a few kids went up there and threw a few stones’, to get to the truth and how
things began. So whenever an attack happened it was ‘republicans from Ardoyne
attacked Loyalists from Glenbryn’, but it was just two drunks coming up the road
they weren’t endorsed by anybody. It wasn’t done as part of a community so
don’t come to us saying that republicans are attacking the community.67
The network has become a means of group competition for authority and influence in
communities, with the informal networks of former combatants utilising gaps in the network
to assert their role. Therefore, whereas in the past competition for community influence may
have manifested in violence, the shape of the network provides the same incentives but
instead it rewards disengagement. The community sees former combatants actively working
to contain violence and shifting to restorative justice schemes to replace the punishment
beatings that, in the past, would have helped them maintain community influence. In many
accounts, the visible community work that has emerged from disengagement – and which
could only be maintained by remaining disengaged – has helped some former combatants to
even improve their influence68. Whilst disengagement would assume an integration of
combatants into society, the networks have allowed the organisations to continue in an
informal manner, and while this provides them with a potentially powerful role in society, the
structure of the networks incentivises co-operation and disengagement. Since the mobile
phones network provides groups with a way to maintain and build their influence socially and
politically, community activism provides many attractive resources which the groups
compete with each other to establish. Competition has provided multiple options for
collaboration between communities, providing them with a choice, and it has helped to fill
the space where the IRA is relatively weak and the dissident Republicans seek to exploit69:
We are not part of [the BCRC] and we don’t want to be part of it, right. But still,
the Loyalists call us because, as they would turn around and say, ‘the Provies
16
[the IRA] work 9-5, it would be great if that was the only time there was trouble,
but the trouble is always at night’ and they don’t come out and won’t be seen.
And one of the aspects, one of the reasons why they can’t go out to areas like
Ardoyne and tell the kids to get off the streets is because the kids would tell them
to fuck off.70
Therefore, while the IRA former combatants would have worked to control areas,
they would have been limited in their reach (especially in Loyalist areas), but the network
provides incentives to co-operate to reduce the risk of violence more holistically. Participants
in the mobile phone network gain incentives from their involvement, and the only way to
ensure their own efficacy in the network is to co-operate, be reliable and trustworthy. If a
participant can no longer have influence at interface areas or does not answer the phone
regularly, the nodes in the network will utilise other contacts in rival paramilitary groups.
Consequently, the network encourages deeper interaction and co-operation, thus acting as a
pull-factor away from violence:
We became accountable to each other, and that’s when the mobile phones came
in. And we would meet each other on a fortnightly basis, so if I say to you there’s
a problem, you need to get this sorted out. If you come back to me in a fortnights
time and I’m sitting there looking you in the eye going ‘what did you do about
that’, and I know if you’re bullshitting me if you like, I’m not gonna phone you
anymore. That relationship diminishes. If you come back and say ‘here’s what I
did, blah blah blah blah, and we stop bullshitting each other… So I think that’s
how it began to change, it came from this personal commitment in a way to each
other and coming back and saying ‘well, no point in me bullshitting you because
you can do it to me next week. I think we have to be honest and up-front with each
other and deal with it that way’, and I think that’s how that stuff developed.71
Subsequently, Republican and Loyalist former combatants began meeting more
regularly, which had previously only happened in much smaller ways in prisons because of
the strong normative constraints against inter-community dialogue. While there were
traditionally strong disincentives for inter-group interaction in both communities, the work of
17
the network and experience as a former combatant gave a green light for interaction, which
began to grow beyond the remit of the mobile phone networks:
We meet fortnightly and regardless of what happens, every fortnight for the last
eight years. You come in and sometimes going ‘there’s nothing happened this
week and we’ll call this meeting off’, but then you go ‘no, because these meetings
are useful, they keep us in touch with each other, we know what we are doing and
it also develops that relationship where we have a trustful working relationship.
There’d be another six or seven chairs in this room and eighteen people would be
in the room and maybe every second Monday morning. And I wouldn’t have gone
out with a drink with any one of them - so we have a working relationship and
probably a friendly enough relationship. We are pally like but we wouldn’t go
over to someone’s for dinner...but hopefully the relationship can work in that
direction, but we are just not there at the moment.72
While inter-group and cross-community co-operation improved the efficacy of the
mobile phone network in calming interface violence, the occurrence of regular dialogue also
helped to build trust and avoid misinterpreting signals. Partly building on this earlier dialogue,
funding from the European Union’s PEACE II project (2000 to 2006) was utilised by former
combatants to develop a number of projects on conflict transformation, prevention and inter-
community dialogue. The different groups began to invite each other into the ‘other’s’
community, going to trips to Dublin and Stormont together, and bringing young people from
one side of the interface to the other73. Also, senior leaders of the paramilitary groups in
Belfast, including representatives from the IRA, began to hold meetings regularly throughout
the 2000s up until now. The growing dialogue firstly built up enough trust to prompt other
paramilitary groups to consider disengagement, and secondly, it helped to prevent a slip-back
into violence during contentious flash-points. One interviewee present at meetings of senior
paramilitary figures in Belfast discussed their importance:
These relations were so important that eventually they contributed to, in large
part, the decommissioning of weapons by the UDA, the INLA and the OIRA, and
that happened a few years ago. Another thing the relationships around the table
18
prevented was a slide back into conflict on a number of occasions. When the two
soldiers were killed in the barracks [and the policeman in 2009]...that was a very
dangerous period because that could have slipped back into conflict. The loyalists
came to the table, they were quite angry. Initially, when the policeman was killed,
it was pointed out around the table that this represented an old mind-set on the
point that the police...belong to your community because that’s the impression
you are giving here, and that they now belong to everybody, so people on the
nationalist side are entitled to be just as annoyed as on the Unionist side. I think
for a number of the Unionist groups around the table...it was a wake-up for them
you know, suddenly they thought ‘that’s true, that is a mind-set we’ve had’…In
fairness to them, they took it on-board and went back into their communities and
said ‘look, there’s no support for this amongst the nationalists/Republican
community in general’. They just kept a lid on things. Same when the two soldiers
were killed; same situation again. Recognition that there was no support for this
anymore, that people didn’t see this as contributing in any way as a way forward,
and again the Loyalists went back into their communities and put a lid on it.74
Throughout this period, dissident Republican groups continued to be active, but their
ability to escalate the conflict by killing two soldiers and a policeman was severely limited by
the inter-communal dialogue and ability of Loyalist leaders to assert their authority in their
communities. Therefore, the presence of former combatants at a community level, facilitated
by EU funding and the success of the mobile phone networks, has occupied a space that
fosters disengagement in society: this can be contrasted with earlier incidents during the
Troubles where killings would lead to a significant escalation in violence. Therefore,
disengagement in Northern Ireland has taken a unique form whereby informal networks of
former combatants and command structures have complemented political change from the
Good Friday Agreement. Thus, community activism that emerged through the IRA’s
disengagement has limited the risk of riots occurring that could destabilise the peace process
– although it has not stopped them completely – and it has encouraged a number of militant
groups to disengage.
Mechanisms such as the mobile phone network are short-term fixes which are
contingent on cross-community support for the initiative to be maintained. Such networks
have the potential to build cross-community trust to remove ‘peace-walls’ and to provide the
19
space for the PSNI to develop their legitimacy75, however greater support needs to be given
to make such networks more durable and resistant to the interests of paramilitaries. While
mutual dependency incentivises co-operation and deeper disengagement and the rarity of
cross-community dialogue amplifies the importance of such networks, recent developments
in the Loyalist community have disrupted the network and some of the benefits it brings.
Weaknesses of Networks: Loyalist Discontent
The transformation of militant groups into informal networks has helped to overcome
and contain trigger causes of violence and it has had a domino-effect on other militant groups,
but wider structural causes of conflict can undermine it. The mobile phone network can help
to contain manifestations of violence that emerge from these structural causes however it is
not a mechanism which can resolve these broader issues. Frustrations with the political
system has led to low-scale Loyalist violence which may be indicative of the limits of the
political system in dealing with identity and constitutional grievances, and these tensions
cannot be dealt with through mechanisms such as the mobile phones network. Two periods of
Loyalist violence emerged, one in 2011 with paramilitary-influenced attacks on the Short
Strand (a Republican enclave in East Belfast), and the 2012-2013 riots and protests following
the decision to remove the Union flag from Belfast City Hall. In both cases, the mechanisms
of managing conflict mentioned previously failed to work, firstly because the rationale
behind removing the flag – equality - did not resonate with the Loyalist community, and
secondly, the mobile phone network broke down. Disengagement and the mobile phone
network is contingent on cross-community support, but some issues can undermine this
support, particularly on identity and constitutional matters:
We actually had a meeting here to discuss the issue [of parades] back in January,
and it was quite hot. To be honest it was people from the Loyalist side, they were
absolutely bouncing up and down…. Now we had discussions here and we had
fairly senior people from the organisations around the table, and the
Unionists/Loyalists were absolutely livid about the flag coming down. And other
people were saying this is part of the equality agenda but they weren’t buying it.
That to me was very revealing because that was an issue that was quite
contentious and quite inflammatory and people, well certainly the Loyalists, had
20
moved back into the old camp. The whole [equality agenda] was quickly side-
lined, and no doubt that would have ricocheted back into communities as well.
They were actually bringing the feelings of the communities with them as well,
but instead of challenging them locally...and the unionist politicians stirred the
thing up.76
Therefore, while the equality agenda facilitated dialogue between both communities
with regard to policing, thus de-escalating the risk of violence in 2009, it has been
unsuccessful in creating agreement on identity issues (such as parades and flags) – beyond
containment - or constitutional issues:
[At a meeting in 2013 between the Belfast paramilitary leaders, a senior IRA
figure] said ‘look lads’ he said to these senior Loyalists, ‘there is a train coming.
Only thirty-six percent of primary school children, right now, are from the
Unionist tradition. So you better be getting your people ready for this, preparing
the way forward, not pretending that there is going to be no change’...[The
loyalists] were stunned, absolutely stunned. One of them actually said, ‘shit’ he
said, ‘does that mean you are going to get what you want, and we aren’t going to
get what we want’.77
Inter-group dialogue is limited in terms of how it can convince Loyalists to contain
violence, which can be linked back to the lack of a similar internal discussion that the IRA
went through. Other factors include internal Loyalist politics which has incentivised groups
to encourage violence and has limited the capacity of the mobile phone network in containing
it:
I think definitely in the last few years because relationships have been fragmented,
the phones have routinely just been turned off. So there has been more of a
tendency to do that recently where relationships are bad with Republicans and
relationships are bad with the police, and we are not going to fill the police’s role
and we are not going to talk to Republicans, so we are going to turn our phones
21
off. There are still key people within the community who keep their phone on, and
when it works well, it works really well. I think there has been some really good
relationship-building and there have been very good forums where straight-
talking has been able to take place, but it’s very difficult to maintain those
relationships in an environment like this where probably we are at the worst
place we have been since the [GFA]. It’s difficult to keep the relationships going
in the face of opposition from your own community who calls you ‘traitor’ for
being involved in those discussions.78
However, another factor that limits the capacity of the mobile phone network in
containing violence is its informality:
What has happened in Northern Ireland is mechanisms like the mobile phone
network have grown up organically and evolved organically, but aren’t funded or
supported strategically at a high level. So they are difficult to sustain and the
baton isn’t going to be handed on because it is all about the current relationship,
it’s not about the framework in which they operate. It’s not about systems or any
of that, it’s all about the relationship. And those guys are all tired and there is
very, very little personal and human support, partly because people don’t know
how to ask for it because it’s such a macho culture.79
In essence, the mobile phone network reflects the same system that operates at the
political level: when one community is in opposition to a decision, they can veto it, but at the
community level this results in violence rather than a vote being cancelled. While there was
some cross-community work to calm down violence during the flag protests80, and some
dialogue still continued during this period, the violence demonstrated that the mobile phone
networks and disengagement is far weaker on the Loyalist side, leaving it open to challenge
from paramilitaries in favour of using violence. The personal strain that involvement in the
networks also make it difficult for its members to stand against the tide of community anger
consistently, and the inability to formally recognise that policing is partly dependent upon
paramilitary groups has limited the support the state can provide81 . Furthermore, the
dependency on former combatants and the lack of a durable mechanism means that there may
22
not be anyone to pass on the baton – or the phone in this case82. While the state may have
built enough legitimacy to take over, the recent Loyalist discontent suggests that mechanisms
such as the mobile phone network will still be crucial in preventing violence.
Implications: Utilising Former Combatants in Preventing Terrorism
The article will now return to discuss the points that were raised with regard to
disengaged combatants preventing terrorism through community activism. As prevention is
often reliant on community-based co-operation, former combatants can provide substantial
resources and access to a ‘radical milieu’ that the state may find difficult to engage with, or
alternative community activists will have less credibility. The article has shown that in
communities which can be described as constituting the ‘radical milieu’, state institutions and
the police force have little legitimacy, and interventions to contain violence can be counter-
productive. Former combatants have much more influence in the communities because they
have cultivated this relationship for decades – therefore the key factor on whether combatants
are useful is if they have credibility in the community. In Northern Ireland, the mobile phone
network and community activism by former combatants helped to occupy the social space
that the state could not, but this has been a transitive role whereby the police force could gain
more legitimacy.
However, the extent to which they can prevent terrorism is dependent upon their
commitment to disengagement. The DDR literature takes this commitment as a given but its
overall importance implies that any further analysis should incorporate considerations on the
types of commitment and attitudinal change required to ensure that DDR is successful. The
terrorism literature is familiar with this debate with regard to the de-radicalisation debate, and
while this has been relegated to the issue of recidivism reduction83, the fact that disengaged
militants can play a role in prevention adds a new dimension to the debate. Thus, while the
type of attitudinal change that occurred among the IRA may not correspond to how de-
radicalisation has been conceptualised84, the article shows that there is a need to re-examine
attitudinal change in more nuance – as there are clearly differences between Republican and
Loyalist disengagement processes.
Thus, once attitudinal change has occurred, it can underpin disengagement which can
then be effective at preventing TPV through community activism. Schmid called for an early
warning system to prevent terrorism, which presumably would be state-led. However, the
23
article has shown how former combatants in Northern Ireland have effectively set up an early
warning system through inter-group meetings. The meetings provided insights into the fears
and feelings in each community, allowing the group leaders to discuss any potential threats
and, once assuaged of the threat, could then return to the community to defuse the tension.
The mobile phones network overcame the lack of communication between communities
whereby the former combatants could gain an idea of what was triggering an escalation in
violence, allowing them to then de-escalate and de-mobilise young people before the violence
got worse.
Building on this point, another substantial element of preventing terrorism is the
removal of the causes of terrorism. While the literature has emphasised root causes the article
has shown that trigger causes can be significant insofar as they can lead to greater levels of
violence, they can be contagious geographically, they can suck disengaged militants back into
violence, and they can provide opportunities for dissident groups. Furthermore, trigger causes
in Northern Ireland are linked back to different layers of durable structures, such as ‘peace
walls’, road systems, parades, identity and culture. A dyadic process of state-led and
community-led action can help to overcome these problems but in the meantime it is former
combatants in a community role who are best to mitigate these problems, however, they do
not have the sufficient resources to offer a long-term solution to trigger causes. In addition,
the article has highlighted an issue in terrorism prevention which has been insufficiently
explored: the de-essentialisation of violence as a counter-terrorism strategy. Former
combatants in the network explored sought to reconstruct how the community perceived
violence, from perceiving stone throwing as a political threat from one identity onto another,
to perceiving it as youth criminality. De-essentialising violence has relevance to other attacks,
for example the Woolwich killing, whereby successfully framing the killing of Lee Rigby as
a murder rather than as an act of terrorism may help minimise the violent reaction.
Furthermore, the maintenance of an informal command-structure was crucial insofar
as it provided direction and resources which could pressure dissidents or provide the
framework for the mobile phones network. Without the continued existence of a command-
structure, the meetings between the leadership may not have been as successful at returning
back to the communities to contain violence. However, the idea of maintaining a command-
structure of a militant group that has been involved in terrorism is understandably
controversial: Northern Ireland may be unique insofar as how open groups linked to terrorism,
past and present, can mobilise. Yet the maintenance of a command-structure does not
24
contradict the expectation that a group involved in terrorism should organisationally disband:
the command-structure has been mediated through informal networks and NGOs which
would have continued regardless. In cases where a terrorism group disengages completely, its
members will still meet up and the command-structure will be maintained or recognised
informally, like a veterans’ association. Therefore, disengagement strategies should not be
overly concerned about the extent there has been organisational disbandment, as the
maintenance of a command-structure can be utilised in conflict transformation and preventing
terrorism. This is not sui generis nor necessarily controversial, as this command-structure is
informal and would exist in some shape or form regardless of the extent it is marginalised or
utilised by state intervention.
Finally, while organisational disengagement through a community route has been
successful in preventing TPV in the case-study presented, there are some reasons to be
sceptical about its transferability. While the utilisation of Jihadist former combatants by the
UK may offer a similar pragmatic approach to preventing terrorism, the government’s desire
to avoid giving a voice to those who challenge values the government wish to promote – for
example, on gender – has limited the transferability of a community approach85. However, it
is not ideology that is the main factor in shaping the extent to which disengagement through a
community route can work. The mobile phone network above was necessary because the
state could not penetrate a significant number of communities, these communities were
substantially divided, and former combatants had far greater influence in their community
and were able to cross the divide. Therefore, disengagement through a community route may
be more effective in preventing terrorism when these situations exist, rather than necessarily
being shaped by ideology or typology of terrorism.
Conclusion
To summarise, through a mix of pragmatism by the state security forces, commitment
to disengagement, and the provision of financial incentives from an external actor (the EU), a
unique disengagement route into community activism was created for (former) combatants.
The states’ weakness in containing violence at interface areas which could trigger terrorism
provided an opportunity for former combatants to work together. The strong divide between
communities and the lack of inter-communal dialogue meant that informal networks of
former combatants placed them in a unique position to contain violence and challenge the
perception that the violence was even political. The structure of the network facilitated co-
25
operation and deeper moves toward disengagement. Its pluralistic nature within
Republicanism and Loyalism meant that there was competition: if one former combatant
could not deliver results, another former combatant could step up. The binary nature of the
network meant that both Republicans and Loyalists had to work together. The network then
led to trust developing which facilitated other militant groups to disengage, who could then
work together to contain the trigger causes of violence which would otherwise help dissident
Republicans mobilise for a larger terrorism campaign. However, more durable structures
need to be in place to replace the network, but it has been the success of the network which
has brought about the conditions where the state can begin to attempt fill this space.
NOTES
1. J. Horgan, "Deradicalization or Disengagement?," Perspectives on Terrorism
Volume II, no. 4 (2008). 2. M Sageman, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). 3. Marcella Ribetti, "Disengagement and Beyond: A Case Study of Demobilization in
Colombia," in Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement, ed. T Bjorgo and J Horgan (Oxon: Routledge, 2009).; M Berdal and D Ucko, "Introduction: The Political Reintegration of Armed Groups after War," in Reintegrating Armed Groups after Conflict: Politics, Violence and Transition, ed. M Berdal and D Ucko (Oxon: Routledge, 2009).; J Gomes Porto, C Alden, and I Parsons, From Soldiers to Citizens: Demilitarization of Conflict and Society (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
4. K McEvoy and P Shirlow, "Re-Imagining Ddr: Ex-Combatants, Leadership and Moral Agency in Conflict Transformation," Theoretical Criminology Vol. 13 (31)(2009); Peter Shirlow et al., Abandoning Historical Conflict?: Former Political Prisoners and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010).
5. A Schmid, "Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review," (the Hague: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2013).
6. P Waldmann, "The Radical Milieu: The under-Investigated Relationship between Terrorists and Sympathetic Communities," Perspectives on Terrorism 2: 8(2008).
7. H Toros and J Gunning, "Exploring a Critical Theory Approach to Terrorism Studies," in Critical Terrorism Studies, ed. R Jackson, M Breen Smyth, and J Gunning (New York: Routledge, 2009).
8. T Bjorgo and J Horgan, eds., Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement (Oxon: Routledge, 2009).
9. Ibid; Audrey Kurth Cronin, How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
10. J Horgan and M B Altier, "The Future of Terrorist De-Radicalization Programs," Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Summer/Fall(2010); J Horgan and K Braddock,
26
"Rehabilitating the Terrorists?: Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of De-Radicalization Programs," Terrorism and Political Violence Volume 22:2, no. 2 (2010).
11. A Rabasa et al., "Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists," (Santa Monica: RAND, 2010).
12. Omar Ashour, The De-Radicalization of Jihadists : Transforming Armed Islamist Movements (London ; New York: Routledge, 2009).
13. A Schmid, "Perspectives on Terrorism - Terrorism in Perspective" (paper presented at the Horizon Scanning 21st Century Insecurities Conference, London, 2013).
14. United States Bipartisan Policy Center, 2011, cited in "Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review."
15. A Schmid, "Twelve Rules for Preventing and Countering Terrorism," Perspectives on Terrorism Vol. 6 (3)(2012).
16. Rogelio Alonso, "Leaving Terrorism Behind in Northern Ireland and the Basque Country: Reassessing Anti-Terrorist Policies and the 'Peace Processes'," in Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement, ed. Tore Bjorgo and John Horgan (Oxon: Routledge, 2009).
17. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 18. Security & the Rule of Law Transnational Terrorism, "Concepts of Terrorism:
Analysis of the Rise, Decline, Trends and Risk," (2008). 19. Bjorgo, Strategies for Preventing Terrorism. 20. Ashour, The De-Radicalization of Jihadists : Transforming Armed Islamist
Movements. 21. G Clubb, "Re-Evaluating the Disengagement Process: The Case of Fatah,"
Perspectives on Terrorism Volume 3, Issue 3(2009). 22. Ribetti, "Disengagement and Beyond: A Case Study of Demobilization in
Colombia." 23. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 24. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 3, 3rd September 2013 25. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 2, 2nd September 2013 26. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 3, 3rd September 2013 27. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 3, 3rd September 2013 28. Interview, Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 29. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 30. Interview, Academic/Project Manager, 2nd September 2013 31. McEvoy and Shirlow, "Re-Imagining Ddr: Ex-Combatants, Leadership and Moral
Agency in Conflict Transformation."; Clare Dwyer, "Expanding Ddr: The Transformative Role of Former Prisoners in Community-Based Reintegration in Northern Ireland," The International Journal of Transitional Justice Vol. 6(2012).
32. Cronin, How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns.
33. Berdal and Ucko, "Introduction: The Political Reintegration of Armed Groups after War."
34. Interview, Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 35. "Richard Hass Warns Ni Violence Could Re-Emerge without Progress," BBC
News [Accessed] 12 March 2014. 36. Martyn Frampton, "Dissident Irish Republican Violence: A Resurgent Threat?,"
The Political Quarterly 83, no. 2 (2012). 37. McEvoy and Shirlow, "Re-Imagining Ddr: Ex-Combatants, Leadership and Moral
Agency in Conflict Transformation."
27
38. Interview, 32 CSM Republican, 15th August 2013 39. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013 40. Shirlow et al., Abandoning Historical Conflict?: Former Political Prisoners and
Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. 41. Ibid. 42. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 3, 3rd September 2013 43. J McEvoy, "Elite Interviewing in a Divided Society: Lessons from Northern
Ireland," Politics 26:3 (2006). 44. Rogelio Alonso, The Ira and Armed Struggle (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007). 45. Ibid. 46. Ross Frenett and M. L. R. Smith, "Ira 2.0: Continuing the Long War - Analyzing
the Factors Behind Anti-Gfa Violence," Terrorism and Political Violence Vol. 24, no. Issue. 3 (2012).
47. Interview, former INLA member, 26th August 2013 48. Neil Jarman, "Peacebuilding and Policing: The Role of Community-Based
Initiatives," Shared Space: A research journal on peace, conflict and community relations in Northern Ireland 3(2006).
49. "Managing Disorder: Responding to Interface Violence in North Belfast," (Belfast: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, 2002).
50. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 51. Interview, Northern Ireland Police Official 15th August 2013 52. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 53. Interview, Community Worker, 14th August 2013 54. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 55. Interview, former INLA member, 26th August 2013; Interview, Community
Worker, DE 13th September 2013 56. Jarman, "Managing Disorder: Responding to Interface Violence in North Belfast." 57. Interview, Northern Ireland Police Official 15th August 2013, 15th August 2013 58. Jarman, "Managing Disorder: Responding to Interface Violence in North Belfast." 59. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013 60. Interview, former INLA member, 26th August 2013 61. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013; Interview, S2 62. Interview, former INLA member, 26th August 2013 63. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 64. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013 65. Frenett and Smith, "Ira 2.0: Continuing the Long War - Analyzing the Factors
Behind Anti-Gfa Violence." 66. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013 67. Interview, Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 68. Informal discussions with former combatants and community workers
demonstrated the growing role the UDA have and one former IRA member explained how being a tour guide helps him feel he is still active in the struggle but as a force for conflict transformation.
69. Interview, 32 CSM Republican, 15th August 2013 70. Interview, former INLA member, 26th August 2013 71. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 72. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 1, 22nd August 2013 73. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 74. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013
28
75. Interview, former Provisional IRA member 2, 2nd September 2013; Interview,
Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 76. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 77. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 78. Interview, Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 79. Interview, Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 80. Interview, Community Worker CI, 5th September 2013 81. Interview, Community Worker, DE 13th September 2013 82. Interview, Community Worker CH, 30th August 2013 83. J Horgan and M Taylor, "Disengagement, De-Radicalization and the Arc of
Terrorism: Future Directions for Research," in Jihadi Terrorism and the Radicalisation Challenge: European and American Experiences, ed. R Coolsaet (London: Ashgate, 2011).
84. Andrew Silke, Research on Terrorism : Trends, Achievements, and Failures, Cass Series on Political Violence (London: Frank Cass, 2003).
85. Interview, Home Office Security Official, 9th August 2013